Live blog: Sven Nys makes young fans go 'WOW', Valverde to make Flanders debut in 2019, Campenaerts planning an April assault on Wiggins' hour record, Australia's biggest cycling charity calls for change to mandatory helmet laws +more

burtthebike wrote:

Since cycle helmets are ineffective in collisions with motor vehicles, but may be effective in low speed collisions, they want to keep helmets mandatory where they don't work and let people take them off where they might work.

Good point. In addition, what everyone seems to overlook, is the fact that helmets can LIMIT injuries to the brain, head and face. It is not just about fatal accidents.

But of course, there are no statistics available to document the level of damage from accidents where the victim survives while it is easy to document whether a cyclist died or not from an accident!

That is why I use a helmet. Acutally, I have a dent in my skull from a bike accident when I was a teenager, I smashed my head into the end of the handlebars when a car hit my pedal. Surely a helmet would have prevented this and the 5 days in hospital from the concussion.

risoto wrote:

That is why I use a helmet. Acutally, I have a dent in my skull from a bike accident when I was a teenager, I smashed my head into the end of the handlebars when a car hit my pedal. Surely a helmet would have prevented this and the 5 days in hospital from the concussion.

Without wishing to stoke YAHD*, probably not. A helmet may have prevented the dent in the skull, but you would likely still have had the concussion. 

*Yet Another Helmet Debate

CygnusX1 wrote:

risoto wrote:

That is why I use a helmet. Acutally, I have a dent in my skull from a bike accident when I was a teenager, I smashed my head into the end of the handlebars when a car hit my pedal. Surely a helmet would have prevented this and the 5 days in hospital from the concussion.

Without wishing to stoke YAHD*, probably not. A helmet may have prevented the dent in the skull, but you would likely still have had the concussion. 

*Yet Another Helmet Debate

Was the point of your reply to make you look like a w4nk3r? If so, you've nailed it. Top marks pal.

See 59 wrote:

Was the point of your reply to make you look like a w4nk3r? If so, you've nailed it. Top marks pal.

I doubt that the point of his post was to make himself look like a w4nk3r, but I'm pretty certain you have.

Perhaps if we could keep this forum relatively polite and not insult each other at the least provocation, we might all learn something.

See 59 wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

risoto wrote:

That is why I use a helmet. Acutally, I have a dent in my skull from a bike accident when I was a teenager, I smashed my head into the end of the handlebars when a car hit my pedal. Surely a helmet would have prevented this and the 5 days in hospital from the concussion.

Without wishing to stoke YAHD*, probably not. A helmet may have prevented the dent in the skull, but you would likely still have had the concussion. 

*Yet Another Helmet Debate

 

Was the point of your reply to make you look like a w4nk3r? If so, you've nailed it. Top marks pal.

Top marks for intelligent, reasoned comment . . . not.

risoto wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Since cycle helmets are ineffective in collisions with motor vehicles, but may be effective in low speed collisions, they want to keep helmets mandatory where they don't work and let people take them off where they might work.

Good point. In addition, what everyone seems to overlook, is the fact that helmets can LIMIT injuries to the brain, head and face. It is not just about fatal accidents.

But of course, there are no statistics available to document the level of damage from accidents where the victim survives while it is easy to document whether a cyclist died or not from an accident!

That is why I use a helmet. Acutally, I have a dent in my skull from a bike accident when I was a teenager, I smashed my head into the end of the handlebars when a car hit my pedal. Surely a helmet would have prevented this and the 5 days in hospital from the concussion.

And what is your approach whilst walking or in a motorvehicle with reagrds to helmet wearing, just out of curiosity? What about when you're in London or other big cities, do you wear a stab vest?

Do you advise vulnerable persons when out alone at night or going back to an abusive partner that they wear a protective garment 'just in case', or do you just count the number of adult and child deaths/serious injuries caused by head injury whilst walking/on foot and in motorvehicles, child and adult stabbings, rapes and fractured skulls in the home and out of the home and shrug your shoulders and think nothing of wearing protective garments? If so, why?

Why is your perception of risk only focussed on one of the safer activities we participate in, in life? Say, safer than being a pedestrian for instance according to government stats? More child deaths from head injury in England alone whilst in a motorvehicle than the total number of child deaths of all injury types whilst cycling in the whole of the UK. So which group requires helmets, which group actually has a positive impact on that childs life and which doesn't? But you and others want to stime that group by forcing them (yes children are forced at all levels for the most part) to adopt wearing something that has a direct and indirect negative effect on their health yet they are less at risk than children elsewhere in society for same injury types but you and others wouldn't batter an eyelid to be concerned about wearing a garment that makes no claims about protective qualities by the manufacturers? Again, why?

I'd like to understand why people will ignore facts on the one hand and make illogical decisions for themselves and their families/friends based on heresay and emotional responses whilst looking away from making the same decisions for factually proven to be more dangerous, as dangerous or having same outcomes in those activities in substantial numbers. 1.3million reported head injuries in the UK, 160,000 hospital admissions every year, number of seriously injured cyclists from all types of injury (the vast majority caused by another group who we want to remove off the roads), circa 3100, you do the maths.